That doesn't take away from the absurdity (after enough time has passed from infection).

There is _no chance_ that somebody who has not contracted COVID-19 is safer than somebody who has.

In the case of no immunity, they're both equally dangerous. In the case of yes immunity, those being banned are safer.

, they're equally likely to contract COVID. At worst, the person who h

True. There are three main aspects from the military's side to consider when a candidate tests positive for IgM anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies:

0. Immunity - Possibility of not lifelong immunity.

1. Carriers - Possibility of continuing to shed viruses and infect other personnel. (It costs too much to conduct rtPCR tests, it's worth just playing it safe and hoping determined candidates reapply or ask for waivers when more scientific evidence is available.)

2. Organ damage - Potential for permanently-reduced lung capacity due to damage from COVID-19, which reduces operational effectiveness. Also, the potential for kidney, liver, and heart damage.. this raises potential ongoing healtcare liabilities (TRICARE).